Loading...
pc_04 21 1992LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD APRIL 21,1992 12:30 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being seven in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the March 10,1992 meeting were approved as mailed. III.Members Present:John McDaniel Ramsay Ball Kathleen OlesonBillPutnam Joe Selz Jim VonTungeln Emmett Willis,Jr. Jerilyn Nicholson (arrived after roll call) Brad Walker (arrived after roll call) Ronald Woods (arrived after roll call) Members Absent:Diane Chachere City Attorney:Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING AGENDA APRIL 21,1992 DEFERRED ITEMS: A.Z-5544 18018 Kanis Road R-2 to C-3 B.Z-5546 4300 Asher Avenue C-3 to C-4 C.Z-5548 6207 Northmoor Drive R-4 to 0-3 D.Harris Conditional Use Permit (Z-5557) REZONING ITEMS: 1.Z-5553 6608 Baseline Road R-2 to C-3 2.Z-5556 Crystal Valley Road R-2 to AF and Colonel Miller Road OTHER MATTERS: 3.Capitol Keyboard Revised PCD (Z-5178-B) April 21,1992 ITEM NO 544 Owner:West Little Rock Development Company and James and Amanda Moore Applicant:James Moore Location:18018 Kanis Road Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Purpose:Commercial Size:5.5 acres Existing Use:Single-Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND Z ING North —Vacant,zoned R-2 South —Vacant,zoned R-2 East —Vacant,zoned R-2 West —Commercial,zoned C-3 STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone 5.5 acres on the north side of Kanis Road from R-2 to C-3.The site islocatedinAreaIIoftheExtraterritorialAreaandsituated approximately one-half mile west of the Chenal Parkway. Currently,the property is being used as a residence, however,the land has been occupied by a commercial use, Aloha Pools,within the past year.In addition to the house,there are three accessory buildings on the property, including a barn. Zoning in the immediate vicinity is either R-2 or C-3,with the site in question abutting a C-3 tract on the west.The area was zoned to R-2 in the latter part of 1991 and the C-3 rezonings were accomplished this year.The land use pattern found along Kanis Road is primarily single family,but therearesomenonresidentialusesonKanistotheeastandwest. Throughout the area there are a number of vacant parcels. The adopted plan for this part of Area II shows a commercial"node"at the intersection of Kanis and Edswood Roads.The property in question is within the defined "node". Therefore,a commercial reclassification of the five acresisappropriateandstaffsupportstheC-3 request.The plan 1 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.:A Z-5544 Cont. recommends commercial use for properties north and south of Kanis with a larger percentage of "node"located west of Edswood Road.There are no outstanding zoning issues associated with this request. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the C-3 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 10,1992) The applicant was represented by Mrs.James Moore.There were two objectors in attendance.Mrs.Moore spoke briefly and suggested the opponents be allowed to address the Commission first. Anne Childs,18,211 Kanis Road,spoke and said that she and her husband,John Childs,were opposed to C-3 rezoning. Ms.Childs then submitted a letter to the Commission and proceeded to discuss her home,which she described as ahistoricallandmark.She presented some history on the house and said that a substantial investment has been putintotheproperty.Ms.Childs discussed Kanis Road and saidthatshedidnotwantanotherRodneyParham.Ms.Childs made some comments about the existing C-3 and asked that the proposed C-3 request be denied.Ms.Childs said that her property has 450 feet of frontage on Kanis,and presented some photos. Mrs.James Moore spoke again and described the existing residence on the property,and said it was no longerhistoricalbecauseofvariousadditions.She then discussed future plans for the Chenal area and described the existing uses to the west.Mrs.Moore told the Commission that the single family residence will remain the use for the foreseeable future. There were some discussion about the Outer Loop and the Area II land use plan. Mrs.James Moore then requested that the item be deferred to the April 21,1992 hearing. Anne Childs made some additional comments. 2 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.:A Z-5544 Cont. A motion was made to defer the item to April 21,1992 meeting.The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 nay and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 21,1992) The applicant,James Moore,was present.There were seven objectors in attendance.James Moore spoke and said that he met with staff several times and was told that his property was in a designated commercial node on the adopted land use plan.Mr.Moore told the Commission that C-3 was filed for based on the information provided by the staff,and there were no definite plans for the site.He went on to discuss the Outer Loop and the future land use in the area. Mr.Moore then described existing uses and said the property was purchased in January 1992. Anne Childs,18,211 Kanis Road,spoke and said that she has talked to other property owners and staff members about the rezoning request.Ms.Childs then submitted a letter and a petition with signatures opposed to the C-3.She went on to say that the plan was general and C-3 would put the area at risk.Ms.Childs said there were very few restrictions in the C-3 district,and the rezoning would have a negative impact on the area.Ms.Childs concluded by asking the Commission to deny the C-3 request. James Moore spoke again and said that some of the nonresidential uses have been in place for a number of years.Mr.Moore also said that the land was purchased for investment purchases. There was a long discussion about staff's modified recommendation for the site,a POD,and commercial nodes. Jim Lawson,Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, addressed the POD recommendation and said there were problems with C-3.Mr.Lawson also said there was a timing concern with the rezoning. Bob Brown,Plans Specialist,told the Commission that the Landscaping Ordinance did not apply because the property was outside the city limit. Daivd Jones addressed the Commission as a private citizen because he was concerned with the issue.Mr.Jones said that he agreed with the statements made by Commissioner Walker,and there was a need to be consistent throughout the city.Mr.Jones said there were problems with not allowing C-3 zoning for property that was part of a commercial node shown on an adopted plan. 3 April 21,1992 IT NO.:A Z-55 4 CQ Amanda Moore spoke in support of the request.Ms.Moore said she lived in the area and there were numerous commercial uses in existence. Janet Scholl,611 Edswood Road,spoke against the C-3 zoning and discussed the area.Ms.Scholl said that the existing businesses did not disrupt the flavor of the neighborhood, which is primarily residential.Ms.Scholl said Kanis could become another Rodney Parham if the rezoning was granted. A motion was made to recommend approval of C-3 rezoning. The motion was denied by a vote 3 ayes,6 nays,1 absent and 1 abstention (John McDaniel). 4 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.'Z-5546 Owner:Guy Pestino Applicant:Guy Pestino Location:4300 Asher Avenue Request:Rezone from C-3 to C-4 Purpose:Auto Body Rebuilding Shop Size:0.23 acres Existing Use:Auto Body Rebuilding Shop SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North —Single-Family and Office,zoned 0-3 and C-3 South —Mixed Uses,zoned C-3 East —Commercial,zoned C-3 West —Mixed Uses,zoned C-3 STAFF ANALYSIS 4300 Asher Avenue is currently zoned C-3 and the request istoC-4 because of a pending enforcement action by the City.Recently,an individual leased the property from the ownerandbeganoperatinganautobodyshop,which is notpermittedintheC-3 district.A violation notice wasissuedandtheoccupantwasinstructedtofilefortheproperzoningorvacatethepremise.The site is a 50 footlotanda20footclosedright-of-way on the east side.There is one building on the property that has no setbacksonthesouthandwestsides. Land use in the general vicinity is typical of the AsherAvenuecorridorandincludessinglefamily,office,commercial,auto services,and industrial.The pattern forthepropertiesthatfrontAsherisfairlymixedandrangesfromsmallretailestablishmentstowarehousing.Theexistingindustrialusesarefoundprimarilysouthof AsherAvenueandthesinglefamilyneighborhoodbeginsapproxi-mately one block north of Asher.Current zoning in the areaisR-3,0-3,C-3,I-2 and PCD.I-2 is the predominantzoningdistrictinthearea. The Oak Forest Neighborhood plan identifies Asher Avenue forcommercialuseandovertheyears,the city has endorsedeitherC-3 or C-4 for the recommended land use pattern.Intheimmediatevicinity,there is no C-4 zoning,however,amajorityoflotsfrontingAsherarezonedI-2,which allows 1 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.:B Z-5546 Cont. similar uses as C-4.Reclassifying 4300 Asher Avenue to C-4 will not impact the surrounding properties nor dramatically alter the existing zoning configuration along Asher Avenue. And finally,C-4 is designed for roadways like Asher,a major thoroughfare. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Asher Avenue requires a right-of-way 90 feet or 45 feet from the centerline.The existing right-of-way is deficient,and a dedication of 15 feet is needed.Because of the building's placement on the front property line,a franchise will be necessary for the encroachment after the additional right-of-way is dedicated.Staff will recommend to the franchise committee and/or the Board of Directors that the franchise be granted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the C-4 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 10,1992) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred because the applicant failed to notify the required property owners. A motion was made to defer the request to April 21,1992 hearing.The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 21,1992) The applicant was present.There were no objectors and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda.A motion was made to recommend approval of C-4 as requested.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. 2 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.:C Z- Owner:Derek and Carolyn Lewis Applicant:David E.Simmons Location:6207 Northmoor Drive Request:Rezone from R-4 to 0-3 Purpose:Daycare Center Size:0.25 acres Existing Use:Vacant Residence SURROUNDING LAND US AND ZONING North —Office,zoned 0-3 South —Single-Family,zoned R-2 East —Vacant,zoned 0-3 West —YWCA,zoned R-5 STAFF ANALYSIS The request for 6207 Northmoor Drive is to rezone the lot from R-4 to 0-3.It is the staff's understanding that the immediate use for the property is a daycare center.The owner's long range plans for the location include some typeofofficefunctionandthatiswhyan0-3 reclassification has been requested.Currently,there is a single story residence on the lot. Zoning of the neighborhood includes R-2,R-5,0-3 and C-3. The property in question abuts 0-3 on the east and across Northmoor the zoning is 0-3.Land use is made up of single family residences,churches,a medical clinic,commercial,a tennis complex (in public)and park,the Boys Club and YWCA. A number of the lots to the east,zoned 0-3,are undeveloped at this time. The existing 0-3 lots within the subdivision have a very involved history and some of it appears to be relevant to the case before the Commission. 1984 —Some of the lots were rezoned to 0-2 and the reclassification created a very undesirable zoning configuration.Staff recommended denial and there was strong neighborhood opposition. 1 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.:C Z-5548 Cont. 1988 —The entire area was rezoned to 0-3 with certain conditions.Again,staff was opposed to the action and some of the objections were raised by a neighbor. With both requests,staff felt that office zoning was misplaced and would have an adverse impact on the single family lots. The current 0-3 request for 6207 Northmoor raises the same issues as the previous office rezonings south of Northmoor, and staff is opposed to the proposed 0-3 reclassification. Staff has always viewed Northmoor as a desirable zoning line between residential and nonresidential zoning.The lots south of Northmoor were platted for single family residences,which the staff still believes is the most appropriate use for the land. Even with the 0-3 zoning of the lots,the Boyle ParkDistrictplanwasneveramendedandallthelotsare identified for single family use,including the one under consideration.An 0-3 reclassification will violate the plan and is not necessary for the proposed use because the daycare center is a conditional use in the R-4 district. (For informational purposes only —the Bill of Assurancerestrictstheuseoflotstosinglefamilyresidencesand is in effect until the year of 2002.To amend the Bill of Assurance,70%of the property owners must sign a written instrument.) ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the 0-3 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 10,1992) The applicant,David Simmons,was present.There were two objectors in attendance.Mr.Simmons addressed the Commission and said that all of the notice requirements have been met.He continued by discussing the 0-3 request and indicated that a daycare was the immediate use,with the long term use being an office or lab.Mr.Simmons said the 2 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.:C Z-5548 Cont. existing single family residences face Cleveland,and there would be no increase in traffic from the proposed uses. Mr.Simmons then presented some photos and said that he has talked with several of the neighbors. Carolyn Lewis,one of the owners,said the rezoning was for a daycare and the possible expansion of the existingclinic/office use.Ms.Lewis asked that the 0-3 be approved and told the Commission that a daycare was needed. Jeffery Hampton,adjacent owner to the south,said the owners of the property in question have the neighborhood's best interest in mind,and it was difficult to locate a quality daycare.Mr.Hampton expressed his support for the rezoning and made some additional comments. Billy Williams,Bittersweet Drive,objected to the O-3 and presented a petition with 56 signatures opposed to the rezoning.Mr.Williams said the office zoning would create problems for the neighborhood and the existing clinic has increased traffic.He then discussed the history of the area and said major traffic problems have been created because of recent developments.Mr.Williams concluded by saying that housing values have decreased because of other nonresidential rezonings. Warren Campbell,1311 South Cleveland,told the Commission that the rezoning would destroy another neighborhood and could start a cycle of deterioration.Mr.Campbell said thelotlacksthenecessaryareaforadequateparking,and there was vacant office property in the immediate vicinity. Mr.Campbell concluded by saying the homeowners stand toloseandaskedtheCommissiontodenytherequest. David Simmons spoke again and discussed other zoning options for the property.Mr.Simmons responded to some of the objections raised by the neighbors and said the clinic did not generate a lot of traffic. There was long discussion about utilizing a design review process for the property and amending the request to a PUD. After some additional comments,David Simmons requested adeferral. A motion was made to defer the issue to the April 21,1992 meeting.The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays,0 absent and 1 abstention (Ramsay Ball). 3 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.:C Z-5548 Cont. PLANNING CO S ON (APRIL 21,1992) The applicant,David Simmons,was present.There were four objectors in attendance.Staff reported that the request has been amended from 0-3 to POD and indicated basic supportforaveryrestrictivePOD. David Simmons addressed the Commission and said that the appearance of the residence would not change if the POD was approved.Mr.Simmons went on to say that the owners want the ability to utilize the property for office/clinic related uses. Billy Williams,6110 Bittersweet,submitted a petition with 95 signatures opposed to any use other than residential. Mr.Williams made some comments about parking and said there was strong opposition to any reclassification. Pat Campbell,1311 South Cleveland,spoke against the request and said she was concerned with the neighborhood's future.Ms.Campbell discussed the parking and the direction the neighborhood was going.She told the Commission that traffic congestion was a problem and expressed concerns with a possibility of a medical lab. Ms.Campbell then asked the Commission to vote to deny the request. David Simmons made some additional comments about traffic and parking.Mr.Simmons indicated that the existing problems were created by North Cleveland.He also said that no patients would utilize the residence. Billy Williams commented on the Northmoor driveway being changed. Verdia Hence discussed the petition and traffic circulation. Stephen Giles,Assistant City Attorney,addressed theBillofAssuranceissue. There was a long discussion and staff again voiced its support for the amended POD. A motion was made to recommend approval of the POD as amended.The vote was 3 ayes,6 nays,1 absent and 1 abstention (Ramsay Ball).The motion failed and the request was denied. 4 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.:D Z-5557 NAME:Harris —Conditional Use Permit LOCATION:3001 West 65th Street OWNER APPLIC T:Arian Harris PROPOSAL:A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow use of the property for a bookstore. ORDINANC IGN STANDARDS: 1.Site Location Located at the intersection of West 65th Street and Murray Road approximately 150 feet. 2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood The site is compatible with the neighborhood.Surrounding the site is a mixture of uses from commercial to industrial. 3.On-Site Drives and Parkin There exist three on-site drives to the site,one off of Murray Road and two off of West 65th Street.The applicant plans to meet the parking requirements. 4.Screenin and Suffers There will have to be new landscaping in order to meet the Ordinance requirement. 5.Cit En ineer Comments There are none to be reported. 6.ilail1 The proposal before the Commission is for an adult bookstore.Presently,the applicant has one bookstore in the area,but will have to relocate in order to meet the new Ordinance requirement for uses of this type. The business will be private and will require a membership to enter.No one under 18 years of age will be given a membership card.There will be books,video tapes and gaggiftspertainingtosexuallyorientedmaterial.There also will be booths for viewing of tapes.Staff feels that this location of the business is a more compatible area than the 1 April 21,1992 I NO.:D Z-5557 Cont. existing location.Zoned I-2 Light Industrial,this use is permitted as a Conditional Use Permit.The site at one time was a service station and has been vacant for a number of years.The expansion of the existing structure along with the other City requirements will help to restore a much needed area. 7.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the landscaping requirements being met and the paving and stripping of the parking areas. SUBDIVISIO COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 19,1992) The applicant was in attendance.Staff gave an overview of the applicant's request.No additional discussion took place.This item was sent on to the full Commission for action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7,1992) The applicant was in attendance.There was one person present in opposition to the Conditional Use Permit,Charles Q.Hinkel,who is a local division manager for NAPA. Mr.Hinkel was asked to speak first before the Commission.He stated that he needed some clarification.Mr.Hinkel stated that when the gentleman (the applicant)came by the store,he was not there.He asked if the Harris Bookstore is to be an adult bookstore.The Chairman responded by saying that was his understanding.Mr.Hinkel then stated as a representative of NAPA,Inc.he was at the meeting to object.He explained there were two primary reasons for attending the hearing:(a)This type of use would be detrimental to the property values in the area and (b)would be a serious threat to the retail customers which now frequent the parts store,just because of the reputation associated with adult bookstores. A commissioner asked Mr.Hinkel where was the NAPA property located in relation to the bookstore.Mr.Hinkel stated that NAPA is located next door at 6519 South Murray,which is to the south. Stephen Giles,Assistant City Attorney,was asked to explain the Ordinance regarding closing down the adult bookstores in the city.Mr.Giles stated that the City started to allow certain adult business uses to be located within designated areas of the City at the end of an amortization period under a separate city ordinance.With this action,the City deemed certain areas to be more appropriate for these businesses to operate and away from 2 April 21,1992 TEM NO.D Z-5557 Cont. the residential areas or close to occupied structures. Mr.Harris has looked around the City and found one such available site,zoned industrial,on which to relocate. Mr.Giles explained that the intent of the Ordinance is to protect residential areas,historic districts,and things which are very sensitive to these types of intrusions that can occur through commercial development.The City has spent a lot of time and effort in identifying available areas.The City may not constitutionally close a business and prevent it from relocating anywhere in the City without paying for it.The City is currently in litigation with the applicant and others concerning the constitutionality of the Ordinance.He stated that this application is a good faith effort on the part of the applicant and City to reach some type of agreement for a location which is not egregious to the surrounding area.However,to locate in this zone the Ordinance requires conditional use review. A board member then asked if there were zones which would allow this use by right.Staff stated yes,C-2 or C-3 would allow a bookstore,but not one of this type.Mr.Giles stated that because of the spacing requirements of the Ordinance,these particular types of businesses have a much harder task in finding a location when compared to a typical bookstore,which would not have the separation requirement as the one before the Commission. Mr.Giles further stated that unless this application is totally incompatible with the surrounding area and found to be detrimental to the properties,then staff's position is approval of the land use.It should not be the position of the Commission to sit in judgment of this use. Arian Harris,the applicant then addressed the Commission.He stated that all he was doing was checking the Ordinance.The Ordinance says the adult bookstore can be located on this site, and he is trying to do so. Staff stated since the application is for a conditional use permit,then the Commission can place conditions on the approval if Mr.Harris and Mr.Hinkel can reach some kind of an agreement. For example,the hours of operation or parking or signage could be restricted. A board member then asked what percentage of the Sign Ordinance applies in industrial zoning?One of the historic things with this type of business is to paint the side of the wall.Can any assurance be given as to the amount of signage which will be on the site? Mr.Harris stated that he is making an investment.He has a tenant,and the City is forcing this person to move.Therefore, he is making the investment to move the tenant.The signage (on 65th Street)would not be any different from the one down the street.Mr.Harris stated all that is happening is the 3 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.:D Z-5557 Cont. one down the street is moving to this location in order to comply with the Ordinance.The business is already in existence.A board member then asked Mr.Harris if he was the owner or applicant?Mr.Harris stated he was the one applying for the use.He also stated he was testing the Ordinance.The City said in federal court that an adult bookstore could be located on this site and he was trying to find out. Staff stated that signage in industrial districts is less than in other districts.Mr.Harris stated there is one little square sign at the present location.It is probably 3 feet tall and 2 feet wide.There will be no painting on the sides of the building.Mr.Harris was asked if he would be willing to amend his application to state there will be a low key sign and none on the building facade.Mr.Harris stated he had no problem with the amendment. Mr.Hinkel addressed the Board again.He stated that to allow this use would be very detrimental to the business because of the type of clientele this type of use caters to.A commission member asked Mr.Hinkel what type of customer frequented his store?Mr.Hinkel stated the typical customer is male between the ages of 18 to 55 which is about 804 of the business. Approximately,35%of the total walk in trade would be women between the ages of 20 to 40 years old. A board member asked if this was going to be new construction and what would be the separation between the two businesses?Staff stated that the site has an existing building.Mr.Harris plans to enlarge this structure and put in landscaping and parking. Bob Brown then stated,"Since the new construction is so much, the Landscape Ordinance would apply 100%".There is approximately 20 feet of separation between the two buildings. The Chairman then ended the public hearing and more discussion took place between the Commission and applicant.A commissioner asked Mr.Harris what would be the hours of operation. Mr.Harris stated that presently the hours are 24 hours a day. However,he would be willing to reduce them if the application is approved. Stephen Giles then asked the commissioners if they were aware of the ramifications of approval or denial.He explained the application is really the focal point of the lawsuit against the City.The applicant and other parties are challenging the City by using the new Ordinance.They feel the intent of the ordinance is to run this type of use out of the city.The City' whole position throughout the lawsuit has been that there are other locations within the city where this use can relocate. This particular site is a suitable place within the allowed zoned areas in the city.It may be that the court will review a denial of this application to uphold Mr.Harris'awsuit.If that happens,the Ordinance would be rendered unconstitutional and the business would be allowed to stay where it is presently located. 4 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.:D Z-5557 Cont. Several commissioners gave their opinions regarding the application.Those opinions ranged from (1)there are other areas in the city for this type of use which would be more acceptable,(2)the Commission has a right to take a closer lookattheapplicationregardlessofwhattheCityandfederalcourt have decided,(3)can the applicant get an extension if the application is denied?(4)the type of zoning,and (5)how long has the property been vacant? The Chairman then called for the pleasure of the Board.A motion was made to accept the amended application restricting the signage and facade.The motion died by a vote of 4 ayes,4 noes and 3 absent.Due to the item not receiving six votes to approve or deny,it was automatically deferred to the April 21,1992 meeting as required by the bylaws. PLANN NG CO ISSION ACTION:(APRIL 21,1992) The applicant was in attendance.There were no objectors present.The Chairman asked of the commission members if they had any new comments or questions regarding this item.One commissioner stated that she would like for the applicant to agree to the type of signage that will be on the site. The applicant stated that he would agree to whatever the Commission felt was necessary.Presently,on the site down the street with the same use,there is a sign 3 feet by 2 feet. A commission member again suggested to other commissioners thatthisConditionalUsePermitbelimitedtoacertaintypeof signage. Mr.Harris then stated a sign 3 feet by 4 feet would be adequateforthebusiness.There will not be any signage on the side walls. A motion was then made to approve the Conditional Use Permit conditioned upon the sign being 3 feet by 4 feet with no signage on the side walls.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. 5 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.:1 Z-5553 owner:Frances May and Joseph H.Red Applicant:Joseph H.Red Location:6608 Baseline Road Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Purpose:Retail Sales of Auto Parts Size:1.16 acres Existing Use:Single-Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North —Single-Family,zoned R-2 South —Vacant,zoned R-2 East —Single-Family and Office,zoned R-2 and 0-3 West —Single-Family and Office,zoned R-2 and 0-3 STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone 6608 Baseline Road from R-2 to C-3 for the sale of auto parts.The property is situated on the north side of Baseline Road,and approximately one-half mile west of Geyer Springs Road.At this time,there is one single family residence on the site;a second residential unit was removed several years ago.The location in question has a 164 feet of frontage on Baseline and a depth of 309 feet. Zoning in the general area is R-2,R-5,0-3,C-1 and C-3,with the property abutting R-2 and 0-3.Over the last several years, there has been no zoning activity in the immediate vicinity.The most recent rezoning,R-2 to 0-3,was accomplished in 1985 and it involved land to the east of Oman Road.Land use includes single family,multifamily,office,commercial,churches and some schoolfacilities.Across Baseline Road,there is a large tract of land,40 acres,as currently vacant and owned by the City ofLittleRock.The site is the future location of the "Southwest Community Complex". The plan for the neighborhood,Geyer Springs West,identifies the southern one-half of the property for office use and the remaining area as single family.Therefore,the proposed C-3isinconflictwiththeadoptedplanandstaffdoesnot support the requested commercial reclassification.The Geyer 1 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.1 Z-5553 Cont Springs West plan shows an office area along the north side ofBaselinefromtheR-5 to just west of the C-3 at Verbena.Staff feels that the recommended land use is the most appropriate for the location and should be reinforced by denying the C-3 rezoning.Approving a C-3 zoning for 6608 Baseline Road could lead to a strip commercial pattern along Baseline,something the City tries to discourage,and could have an adverse impact on the surrounding residentialproperties.Over the years,the staff has not endorsed any commercial zoning in the area,including a CUP for an auto use on the C-3 at Verbena,and our position has not changed with the current request.(The existing C-3 at the northwestcornerofBaselineandVerbenawasaccomplishedin1980asa conversion adjustment for an existing laboratory.) ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMM NDATION Staff recommends denial of the C-3 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 21,1992) The owners were represented by Marcelle Cherry.There were noobjectorsinattendance.Ms.Cherry spoke and said there was a buyer for the property,and the proposed use was retail sales of auto parts.She went on to say that the new owner wouldconstructanewbuilding,approximately 8,100 square feet,and conform to all the necessary city codes.Ms.Cherry said that the new development would be good for the area. There was a long discussion about the request.Marcelle Cherry responded to comments made by several commissioners,and saidtherewasverylittledifferencebetweenacommercialuseand anoffice. After some additional remarks,a motion was made to recommend approval of C-3.The vote was 5 ayes,4 nays and 2 absent.The item was deferred until the May 19,1992 meeting because offailingtoreceivesixpositiveornegativevotes. 2 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.:2 Z-5556 Owner:Melody Parsley Applicant:Melody Parsley Location:Southwest Corner of Crystal Valley Road and Colonel Carl Miller Road Request:Rezone from R-2 to AF Purpose:Single-Family and Agriculture Size:46.5 acres Existing Use:Single-Family and Agriculture SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North —Vacant,zoned R-2 South —Vacant,zoned R-2 East —Single-Family,zoned AF and 0-3 West —Single-Family,zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The property in question,46.5 acres,is located in Area II,the Crystal Valley District,and the request is to rezone thesitefromR-2 to AF.The use of the land will remain single family and agriculture.The site has frontage on both Crystal Valley and Colonel Carl Miller Road.According tothehasemap,there is a creek that crosses the site and some wetland lands on the property. Land use in the general vicinity is primarily single familyresidencesonlargetracts.Other uses found in the area include a church,mini-warehouse units and several auto related use,including auto repair and storage.At this time,a high percentage of land is still undeveloped.ThecurrentzoningisR-2,0-3,AF and PCD.All of thereclassificationswereaccomplishedthroughtherecent AreaIIzoningeffortandthePCDsareforexistinguses. The adopted plan for this part of Area II shows open space,single family and office uses for the 46 acres under consideration.Reclassifying the site to AF is not asignificantvariationfromtheplan's overall direction,and should not have any impact on the surrounding properties. The southeast corner of Crystal Valley and Colonel Carl 1 April 21,1992 ITEM NO.:6 Cont. Miller Road is zoned AF and 0-3.Therefore,approval of the requested AF will duplicate the other corner and conform to an accepted zoning pattern for the area.And finally,staff views AF zoning to be very similar to the recommended single family and open space designations shown on the adopted plan. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the AF rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 21,1992) The applicant was present.There were no objectors in attendance and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. A motion was made to recommend approval of AF as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 eyes,0 nays and 1 absent. 2 April 21,1992 ITEM NO ' hRRLXGhHT:Dell Rich —Capitol Keyboard PCD (Z-5178-B) LOCATION:13401 Chenal Parkway at Old Town Road Intersection Southwest Corner ~RE VER:To amend the permitted use group. STAFF REPORT: Dell Rich,the proprietor of Capitol Keyboard,requests the Planning Commission extend to this PCD an approval of the community theater shows in one of the rooms.The communitytheaterhasfourshowsannuallyandhaverequestedtheCapitol Keyboard facility for only three of these shows.Each show has only six or seven performances over a two week period with each performance averaging 50 to 75 people in the audience.TheseactivitieswillbeheldintheeveningsandonSundays. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff's view of this proposal is that this use is appropriate for the place and type of activities.We suggest the applicant notify all adjoining property owners and provide a schedule of the theater performances for staff's file. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 21/1992) There were no objectors present.The Chairman asked the staff to present its recommendation.Richard Wood of the staff offered abriefoverviewofthehistoryofthisproposedactivityon-site. He stated,on one occasion during 1991,the Community Theater performed a series of shows at this location under enforcementnoticebytheZoningEnforcementstaff.The owner of the property was instructed that the remedy was a revision of his Planned Commercial District.The owner was unable to file the application until March of this year,therefore,creating a problem for the Community Theater.Wood pointed out that staff had administratively approved the first performance for this year with the revised Planned Commercial District to allow later performances during 1992. Wood described the site and indicated that there should not be a parking problem on or about the site since there are 33 parkingspacesonCapitolKeyboard's development area.Within a oneblockradiusofthesite,there are four commercial businesses inplacewhichareclosedafternormalbusinesshoursandon weekends.This could provide the necessary numbers of stalls to provide for the 50 to 75 people average performance. 1 April 21,1992 IT NO.:3 Cont.OTHER MATTERS Wood also pointed out that there has been no objection reported by any of the adjacent owners or business occupants to this proposal.A certified mail notice was delivered to each of the property owners within 200 feet.Wood indicated that staff's recommendation was approval of the change as requested with the commitment to the number of performances as outlined in the proposal of the applicant. Commissioner Oleson then raised the question,"During the time that the Commission approved the original PCD,was there not also included in the application approval for recitals and events of that nature?".Wood's response was in the affirmative.He pointed out that the structure was constructed for this kind of activity,and a limited amount of recitals and demonstration activity was included in the approval.He also responded to thelatterpartofherquestionandstatedthatthisusewasnot included within the original PCD. The Chairman asked if there were interested parties here today either for or against the proposal.Mr.Drake Mann identified himself as the spokesperson for the Community Theater.Mr.Mann presented a brief presentation.He identified several persons with him in the audience,specifically Kathy Hayden.Mr.Mann made a statement that although the staff report presented to the Committee accurately reflect their past activity,it is not adequate to cover the proposal which they now are presenting to the Commission.He indicated that it was there hope that the audience size would increase as they attract larger audiences. He indicated their hope was to increase their attendance from 75 to 100 people per performance.Additionally,he stated that the two week period would be extended to perhaps a three week period with better performances.Commissioner Oleson then pointed out to Mr.Mann that the number may change and asked, "How was it presented in the amendment to staff or was it,infact,written in the amendment?" Richard Wood stated that he did not feel like the staff would place a maximum number on the performances because it was his understanding the performing area was limited to a total of 200 people by the fire marshal,both performers and audience. He felt like there was already a built limit to the number of persons for each performance.Additionally,Wood stated thatstaffwouldbeguidedbythenumberofperformancesandthetime frame which the applicant identifies. Mr.Mann then pointed out that the staff report accuratelyreflectedthatthreeoftheirfourannualshowswouldbe conducted at the Capitol Keyboard site.He indicated that although they now reflect 6 to 7 performances over a two week period.In the application as presented today,there hope is that the performances would be increased to ten or so over a three week period.Mr.Mann indicated that he would make that amendment to the application and offer it to the Commission at this time.He expanded on his comment to say that he had nothing 2 April 21,1992 ITEN O.:3 Cont.OTHER NATTERS more to add to the average number of audience at the performances,except to say that they wish to increase the attendance.He indicated that he did not have advanced bookings or numbers on which to rely.He stated that the appeal of his shows would actually dictate the number of persons which would attend. The Chairman then asked staff if they had any problems with the amendment as now presented.Richard Wood of staff indicated they did not. The Chairman then called the question on the issue as amended. The amendment to place no limitation except the physical limitation on the attendance within the auditorium.A limitation that only three shows per year be conducted at this facility with ten performances over a three period for each show.TheactivitiestobeheldintheeveningsandonSundays.The motion was then put to a vote.A show of hands reflected that the application passed by a 8 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD DATE ~ca,.=nb P~~&lat- MEMBER 2.C BALL,RAMSEY 'v Ap 8 ~ CHACHERE,DIANE A A A 4 A 4 A WILLIS,EMMETT v,v'v MCDANIEL,JOHN v v v v NICHOLSON,JERILYN v ~~v ~v OLESON,KATHLEEN v-y ~~v 0 VONTUNGELN,JIM ~4 v ~y PUTNAM,BILL v ~v v v WOODS,RONALD s v ~ SELZ,JOE H.~v v v WALKER,BRAD v ~H AA TIME IN AND TIME OUT BALL,RAMSEY CHACHERE,DIANE WILLIS,EMMETT MCDANIEL,JOHN NICHOLSON,JERILYN )Z;3+i/a n v wi co se aq nba OLESON,KATHLEEN VONTUNGELN,JIM PUTNAM,BILL WOODS,RONALD $Z.'37 &A a v a can se.n acI ada SELZ,JOE H. WALKER,BRAD f2;3Q lhl 5 a v W ~&se'n ~nda —~2: I I AYE 'NAYE A ABSENT ~ABSTAIN April 21,1992 There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m. Date ore Chaw n